What if Iraq had WMD?

[BOSSHOG]

I posed this question yesterday and I don't mean to be complicated or argumentative, just inquisitive. However, thousands have died, thousands have been injured, maimed, crippled and thousands more will suffer similar fates AND IRAQ DID NOT HAVE WMD. What would we be discussing today if bush had not lied; if iraq had the horrible weapons he said the country possessed? And is a careful consideration of this question more proof that bush knew iraq did not have WMD? Was the talk of "cakewalk" based on the fact that administration insiders knew there were no WMD?

A simple question I would like see posed to bush at a press conference.

[kentuck]

1. We would still have to ask if they were a threat to us ?

Many countries have WMDs....that alone is not sufficient reason for an invasion.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Yep. Clear and present danger or not.

[the Kelly Gang]

3. in all reality..so what if they did?..it was a soveriegn nation ,Saddam or

no Saddam

[BOSSHOG]

6. If they had the WMD, would there not be incredibly more carnage?

That's the So What? I'm not arguing the rightness or wrongess of iaq having weapons. The issue is bush painted a rosy picture even with the false contention that iraq had WMD. Does this fact not compound his lunacy?

[the Kelly Gang]

9. no..if he actually had them I doubt the US would have attacked.

I don't believe they thought for one single moment he had them.
Bush & Co have acted like all bullies..only beat up on the people they know they can beat-up on.

But what they have done is ensure that countries that feel threatened should get WMD..throughout the Cold War the US always had to basically negotiate with the USSR because of their weapons..

but YES..of course he's fucking insane .

[0007]

4. It would had been treated much like the Americans liberating

the Jews from the Nazi concentration camps after World War II.

I indeed believe junior actually thought that the trial like atmosphere of the Nuremberg trials would put him in the hall of fame and would make him the greatest of all presidents, and maybe even get him a third term, LOL!!?

Thank God there were NO Weapons of Mass Destruction to be found.

[Snellius]

5. No WMDs: one of the great historical jokes of all time.

It's like a hot-headed swat team who break down the door of an old neighborhood crack house and, finding no evidence, try to explain that, since they must have had drugs tens years ago, they had a right to invade.

[Catfight]

7. There was still no present danger.

I was never convinced they had enough WMD to do any damage to America...it's an oil war, pure and simple. We are the WMD...we take what we want with brute force, all in the name of national security. Bush is a thug. If he gets four more years, it's four more years of war, if we go by his record, we can count on a depression.

[seabeyond]

8. his leadership is bad

even if they found weapons, and all the world thought he had them, his choices have always been poor. it has been all for what they can have, not in healing iraq and letting them have country. doesnt matter if they found them. bush went in to quickly, didnt have plan, didnt have back up police to stop looting which was a big shift to bad start.

we can go down the line.

really isnt about him finding weapons, he has abused soldiers, has abused american tax payers, has abused the iraqi's

[BlueEyedSon]

10. I'll repeat my brilliant answers from yesterday......

Coercive inspections and UN-led disarmament would have been a sensible course of action.

If the WMDs were there, Colin Powell could have given REAL evidence a the UN presentation (instead of that embarrassing pack of lies) and we would have the entire world with us - and the Iraq situation would have some chance of success.

BTW, Bush would still be lying about everything else.

One argument for the case that Bush was deliberately lying about the WMD's is his eagerness to invade, and with such a small (and unilateral) force. If Saddam had 'em, he would have used 'em. Bush knew there was no chance of that happening.

Furthermore, if the WMDs are there as described, they are plentiful and large. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Iraqis know where they are. Most would be Saddam loyalists, but now that Saddam is in captivity they should fear no reprisals for divulging a state secret.

So, just offer a big fat cash reward and, optionally, safe passage out. One must assume that "disarming" Iraq would still be a good idea, aside from validating the policies of the Bush admin.

Sorta when OJ offered a reward (only Bush isn't as smart).

No reward offer = no real chance of finding preexisting WMD's.

Other possibilities:
1. We haven't planted them yet
2. Waiting for politically advantageous time to "discover" them

[OpSomBlood]

11. Good question...

Unlike many people here, I (like John Kerry) supported the Iraq invasion at first because I took the Bush administration's claims as truth. I heard what Colin Powell said about the biochem stockpiles, I heard about the yellowcake from Niger and the aluminum centrifuge tubes and I thought that the war was justified...Saddam was in clear violation of the UN's sanctions. These weapons in his hands could not be tolerated.

But as it became clear that Bushco was lying about everything, I came around. This might not be a popular sentiment here, but had the WMD claims been 100% true, the war would have been okay with me.

[BlueEyedSon]

12. So, we would still be in a quagmire, AND we would have had

tens of thousands of KIA from the WMDs. Fucking brilliant.

Bush would never have started the damn war if the WMD claims were true.

For example: where's our war with N Korea?

[OpSomBlood]

13. Agreed.

Look, I'm with you...I think that the policy of preemption is dicey at best. And using the WMD/dictator justification, we could invade Cuba, North Korea, Pakistan and a bunch of other countries.

Read what I said again. Had Bush's claims been true, the war would have been justified. If Saddam was collaborating with al Qaeda and was stockpiling WMD, we would have to stop him. I'm no Bush loyalist, I'm just trying to tell you why so many people (myself included) supported the invasion at first.

Forgive me, I'm not accustomed to being so blatantly lied to. It won't happen again.

[BlueEyedSon]

18. Ok Sorry for my testy response

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. If Saddam had had WMDs, don't you think

he would have used them when his country was being invaded?

I can't think of a more appropriate time to pull out everything you've got than when you're trying to repel invaders.

If he didn't use his alleged WMDs when being attacked by the world's largest military, what was he saving them for?

[Postman]

15. Amen brother...I mean sister.

n/t

[hotelmotel]

19. not

neccassarily. He DID have them at the time of gulfwar1 which was obvious, as we destroyed many stockpiles in the war itself and the inspectors found and destroyed a good bit afterwards. But he didn't use them in that war either, but there was no joking around about it, Bush 1 said flat out we would retaliate with nuclear weapons.

as for this war, its obvious most of the regular army didn't want to fight for him at all as most surrendered, but as far as using chem, weapons if they were available.. well I imagine there would have been a much greater amount of casualties on the iraqi side with those high winds coupled with a lack of good protective gear. (gas mask isn't going to help with mustard gas if you've got skin exposed for example)

[Gothmog]

16. CATO Institute did some great work on why not to invade

The CATO Institute did some very nice analysis on reasons not to invade Iraq even if there were WMD. See http://www.cato.org/current/iraq/index.html and http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-464es.html Basically, the analysis is is that Saddam was not a threat and that there is no way that Saddam would turn any WMD over to Al Qaeda.

I do not ofter agree with the guys at the CATO Institute but they have done a decent job of analysis here.

[bluedog]

17. speaking of Iraq..saddam

what has happened to saddam? we seen the picture of him a couple of times but then it seems all mention of him has fell silent..I know they tell us the Red Cross seen him.but nothing else....I would think that this administration would be bragging at the top of their lungs about having him and touting it all over bushs ads.but still silence..........
did we really get him or did bush get a double?? I'm beginning to wonder about this...I don't trust them at all in pulling fast ones.